There's no such thing as a car's general pace. If it were driven by the whole grid, an average might represent that. But that doesn't happen. There is only how fast driver A can go in the car, and how fast driver B can go in it. On race day, I think MOST pairings, most weekends, can achieve the same ultimate lap times, or very, very close. Is Lewis always good for a few tenths more than his teammate? Nope. Is Fernando? Nope. Is Sebastian? Nope. And that's true on either day.

There's no such thing as a car's general pace. If it were driven by the whole grid, an average might represent that. But that doesn't happen. There is only how fast driver A can go in the car, and how fast driver B can go in it. On race day, I think MOST pairings, most weekends, can achieve the same ultimate lap times, or very, very close. Is Lewis always good for a few tenths more than his teammate? Nope. Is Fernando? Nope. Is Sebastian? Nope. And that's true on either day.

If there is no such thing as a car's general pace, then can Vettel get into a HRT and lap quicker than Alonso in his Ferrari? Ofc not, each team has a general pace and that builds through out the year with development.

_________________A man exists for only a lifetime, a name lasts until the end of time.

There's no such thing as a car's general pace. If it were driven by the whole grid, an average might represent that. But that doesn't happen. There is only how fast driver A can go in the car, and how fast driver B can go in it. On race day, I think MOST pairings, most weekends, can achieve the same ultimate lap times, or very, very close. Is Lewis always good for a few tenths more than his teammate? Nope. Is Fernando? Nope. Is Sebastian? Nope. And that's true on either day.

If there is no such thing as a car's general pace, then can Vettel get into a HRT and lap quicker than Alonso in his Ferrari? Ofc not, each team has a general pace and that builds through out the year with development.

What she is saying is, between most teams, each driver can achieve more or less the same lap times in their respective cars. Which is true, some drivers can pull out fast laps more consistently than others though, thats where Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel stand out vs the rest of the grid.

There's no such thing as a car's general pace. If it were driven by the whole grid, an average might represent that. But that doesn't happen. There is only how fast driver A can go in the car, and how fast driver B can go in it. On race day, I think MOST pairings, most weekends, can achieve the same ultimate lap times, or very, very close. Is Lewis always good for a few tenths more than his teammate? Nope. Is Fernando? Nope. Is Sebastian? Nope. And that's true on either day.

If there is no such thing as a car's general pace, then can Vettel get into a HRT and lap quicker than Alonso in his Ferrari? Ofc not, each team has a general pace and that builds through out the year with development.

There is only the pace of one driver in one car. If one driver can get more pace out of the car, then that's the pace of the car. Saying "I would reckon LH is indeed worth a couple of tenths above and beyond a cars general pace, perhaps more in quali" is essentially saying "I think Lewis can drive any car a couple of tenths faster than anyone currently driving it". Which is just silly.

There's no such thing as a car's general pace. If it were driven by the whole grid, an average might represent that. But that doesn't happen. There is only how fast driver A can go in the car, and how fast driver B can go in it. On race day, I think MOST pairings, most weekends, can achieve the same ultimate lap times, or very, very close. Is Lewis always good for a few tenths more than his teammate? Nope. Is Fernando? Nope. Is Sebastian? Nope. And that's true on either day.

If there is no such thing as a car's general pace, then can Vettel get into a HRT and lap quicker than Alonso in his Ferrari? Ofc not, each team has a general pace and that builds through out the year with development.

There is only the pace of one driver in one car. If one driver can get more pace out of the car, then that's the pace of the car. Saying "I would reckon LH is indeed worth a couple of tenths above and beyond a cars general pace, perhaps more in quali" is essentially saying "I think Lewis can drive any car a couple of tenths faster than anyone currently driving it". Which is just silly.

Seriously, give Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Webber, Button maybe even Massa all a car setup to their liking and you'll have a hard time determining who is fastest, the margins would be tiny. Thats why I think the whole theory developing a car for a driver is a bit of a myth, giving out upgrades is benefitting both drivers. I think the biggest factor between team mates this year has been setup. This season has shown it's no secret that some drivers are better at setting up their car better than their team mates, never mind these 'superior strategy' bs arguements.

Last edited by MikeV1987 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There's no such thing as a car's general pace. If it were driven by the whole grid, an average might represent that. But that doesn't happen. There is only how fast driver A can go in the car, and how fast driver B can go in it. On race day, I think MOST pairings, most weekends, can achieve the same ultimate lap times, or very, very close. Is Lewis always good for a few tenths more than his teammate? Nope. Is Fernando? Nope. Is Sebastian? Nope. And that's true on either day.

If there is no such thing as a car's general pace, then can Vettel get into a HRT and lap quicker than Alonso in his Ferrari? Ofc not, each team has a general pace and that builds through out the year with development.

There is only the pace of one driver in one car. If one driver can get more pace out of the car, then that's the pace of the car. Saying "I would reckon LH is indeed worth a couple of tenths above and beyond a cars general pace, perhaps more in quali" is essentially saying "I think Lewis can drive any car a couple of tenths faster than anyone currently driving it". Which is just silly.

Seriously, give Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Webber, Button maybe even Massa all a car setup to their liking and you'll have a hard time determining who is fastest, the margins would be tiny. Thats why I think the whole theory developing a car for a driver is a bit of a myth, giving out upgrades is benefitting both drivers. I think the biggest factor between team mates this year has been setup. This season has shown it's no secret that some drivers are better at setting up their car better than their team mates.

And some drivers need a set-up which is pretty much perfect to be able to keep up with their team mates.

_________________A man exists for only a lifetime, a name lasts until the end of time.

There's no such thing as a car's general pace. If it were driven by the whole grid, an average might represent that. But that doesn't happen. There is only how fast driver A can go in the car, and how fast driver B can go in it. On race day, I think MOST pairings, most weekends, can achieve the same ultimate lap times, or very, very close. Is Lewis always good for a few tenths more than his teammate? Nope. Is Fernando? Nope. Is Sebastian? Nope. And that's true on either day.

If there is no such thing as a car's general pace, then can Vettel get into a HRT and lap quicker than Alonso in his Ferrari? Ofc not, each team has a general pace and that builds through out the year with development.

There is only the pace of one driver in one car. If one driver can get more pace out of the car, then that's the pace of the car. Saying "I would reckon LH is indeed worth a couple of tenths above and beyond a cars general pace, perhaps more in quali" is essentially saying "I think Lewis can drive any car a couple of tenths faster than anyone currently driving it". Which is just silly.

Seriously, give Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Webber, Button maybe even Massa all a car setup to their liking and you'll have a hard time determining who is fastest, the margins would be tiny. Thats why I think the whole theory developing a car for a driver is a bit of a myth, I think the biggest factor between team mates this year has been setup. This season has shown it's no secret that some drivers are better at setting up their car better than their team mates.

I agree with you up until the part about setup being the biggest difference between teammates this year. For the first half of the season that may be true - I think some of the drivers were arriving at a setup that felt okay, and looked okay on paper, while their teammates pushed it trying to get better than just okay. In some cases the decision was probably made by the team, while in others the driver himself chose to do it. Sometimes that worked for them, sometimes it didn't. I think the same goes for development parts. To me, the second part of the season wasn't about setup differences.

There's no such thing as a car's general pace. If it were driven by the whole grid, an average might represent that. But that doesn't happen. There is only how fast driver A can go in the car, and how fast driver B can go in it. On race day, I think MOST pairings, most weekends, can achieve the same ultimate lap times, or very, very close. Is Lewis always good for a few tenths more than his teammate? Nope. Is Fernando? Nope. Is Sebastian? Nope. And that's true on either day.

If there is no such thing as a car's general pace, then can Vettel get into a HRT and lap quicker than Alonso in his Ferrari? Ofc not, each team has a general pace and that builds through out the year with development.

There is only the pace of one driver in one car. If one driver can get more pace out of the car, then that's the pace of the car. Saying "I would reckon LH is indeed worth a couple of tenths above and beyond a cars general pace, perhaps more in quali" is essentially saying "I think Lewis can drive any car a couple of tenths faster than anyone currently driving it". Which is just silly.

Seriously, give Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Webber, Button maybe even Massa all a car setup to their liking and you'll have a hard time determining who is fastest, the margins would be tiny. Thats why I think the whole theory developing a car for a driver is a bit of a myth, giving out upgrades is benefitting both drivers. I think the biggest factor between team mates this year has been setup. This season has shown it's no secret that some drivers are better at setting up their car better than their team mates.

And some drivers need a set-up which is pretty much perfect to be able to keep up with their team mates.

Ideally, every driver wants a perfect setup obviously, some drivers put the time and work in to make sure they can get their car working as best as possible, on the other hand some drivers don't put the same amount of work in and/or just aren't as good on the technical side. As an example, all out pace wasn't the only thing that made Senna a great driver, he worked hard on 'details' as Mika put it.

Yeah true, but I believe that some drivers can drive a car that doesn't have the exact right setup faster than others can. We have seen how much Jenson suffers when he gets a bit lost on the setup of the car, not saying he is the only one but one of the more noticeable.

_________________A man exists for only a lifetime, a name lasts until the end of time.

Keep in mind the drivers aren't sitting in the garage saying "lets add .25* camber here..." and doing the nut and bolt themselves. There isn't a huge window on most cars to adjust the spec sheet because the area where all the elements of the car work together is small. Sometimes a driver can't find a happy place within it. That's why good cars have big windows. But anyway, back to my original point...a lot of the setup is determined at the factory, via computer, ahead of the weekend and over friday night. "Good" and "excellent" at setup, in terms of the driver, is often just the difference between being able to analyze what they experienced and then communicating it really well. I know drivers who can't tell you what they did on the circuit without seeing it on the telemetry. Its incredibly annoying.

Yeah true, but I believe that some drivers can drive a car that doesn't have the exact right setup faster than others can. We have seen how much Jenson suffers when he gets a bit lost on the setup of the car, not saying he is the only one but one of the more noticeable.

No driver will do well in a car with a bad setup, we also seen how Hamilton suffers when he gets his setup wrong too, same deal. The differences in pace could also be where the driver decides to use DRS/KERS on a given qualy lap too, theres so many variables between team mates I just find it hard to believe that driver A is better than driver B because of car development when they both get the same upgrades.

Last edited by MikeV1987 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Keep in mind the drivers aren't sitting in the garage saying "lets add .25* camber here..." and doing the nut and bolt themselves. There isn't a huge window on most cars to adjust the spec sheet because the area where all the elements of the car work together is small. Sometimes a driver can't find a happy place within it. That's why good cars have big windows. But anyway, back to my original point...a lot of the setup is determined at the factory, via computer, ahead of the weekend and over friday night. "Good" and "excellent" at setup, in terms of the driver, is often just the difference between being able to analyze what they experienced and then communicating it really well. I know drivers who can't tell you what they did on the circuit without seeing it on the telemetry. Its incredibly annoying.

I'm not saying they go into the weekend with no data, cuase no doubt they have a baseline setup for each track. It's just some drivers are better at making their car more comfortable to drive than others, or they are just plain faster and/or more consistent. Thats why I think it's complete and utter BS when people around here troll around the forums saying how RBR favours Vettel indefinitely, when they obviously give both drivers equal treatment if they are both in the title hunt.

edit: and no they wouldn't say something like add .25 camber or something, but if I driver feels like it needs more downforce through a certain sector he will request it, rather than trying to drive around the problem.

Again, its often just a case of a driver being better able to understand what the experience is on the circuit and effectively communicate it rather than knowing what is physically needed to improve it. Thats why the relationship between driver and his engineers and chief mechanics is so crucial. Even if a driver is really good at analyzing and communicating, if his counterparts in the garage can't interpret that effectively you still don't get the best possible result. Thats why I hate the turnover rate for younger drivers - it takes time to built that relationship and if you're changing teams every year or two you don't get that.

Keep in mind the drivers aren't sitting in the garage saying "lets add .25* camber here..." and doing the nut and bolt themselves. There isn't a huge window on most cars to adjust the spec sheet because the area where all the elements of the car work together is small. Sometimes a driver can't find a happy place within it. That's why good cars have big windows. But anyway, back to my original point...a lot of the setup is determined at the factory, via computer, ahead of the weekend and over friday night. "Good" and "excellent" at setup, in terms of the driver, is often just the difference between being able to analyze what they experienced and then communicating it really well. I know drivers who can't tell you what they did on the circuit without seeing it on the telemetry. Its incredibly annoying.

I worked with one, I used to sit in the Co-drivers seat and send someone else out around the track with a camcorder. Just to get some idea of what the car was doing.

His feed back consisted of "Thats great keep it there" . I drove the car after one of his "Yip thats great ready for the trailer" shake downs. Front shock was more akin to a bowl of Jelly.

Unfortunately didn't have the luxury of telem. Although after I reminded him what the shift light was for after watching in-car I don't think I would have gotten to see it if we did have it

Best one was when he managed to pull a link rod from the back suspension captive nuts and all out of the chassis. One stage to go Co-driver said "Say nothing it's a mickey mouse lets just take home the points" Set fastest time in the class and blamed the handling on the rain that started when they were in time control. Rear wheel was going through insane amounts of camber changes.

Quick driver though and could give brill feedback on anyones driving. Just fairy cakes with the car.

The luckiest driver in F1?? I suppose he'll claim he's the "unluckiest" next.. Reeks of sour grapes, Vettel's one of the best out there and is proving it time and time again with actual results, not excuses, not whining, but actual quantifiable results and it's starting to look like Lewis can't deal with it.

_________________o·ver·rat·ed - overestimation of skills or abilities, anything that is given too much credit and hype.

The luckiest driver in F1?? I suppose he'll claim he's the "unluckiest" next.. Reeks of sour grapes, Vettel's one of the best out there and is proving it time and time again with actual results, not excuses, not whining, but actual quantifiable results and it's starting to look like Lewis can't deal with it.

I believe it was in reference to the Abu Dhabi GP itself, not him being the luckiest driver of the season/in total. I'm not surprised by the way you read into this considering your blind hate for Hamilton. I don't think you can deal with anything related to Hamilton civilly and to be quite honest your posts are a waste of peoples time as there is never anything substantially important in them...

I believe it was in reference to the Abu Dhabi GP itself, not him being the luckiest driver of the season/in total. I'm not surprised by the way you read into this considering your blind hate for Hamilton. I don't think you can deal with anything related to Hamilton civilly and to be quite honest your posts are a waste of peoples time as there is never anything substantially important in them...

Stay on topic please, this thread is not about your personal appraisal of my post quality and motives, stop being a ****, your rant in my direction is just self important garbage and nothing to do with Lewis opening his mouth and having rubbish spill out yet again, he's crying into his beer because a better driver won the WDC, I'm merely stating how I perceive his little green eyed monster comments, rightly or wrongly. Not everyone buys into this oversold LH amazing driving god myth you know zzzzz..

_________________o·ver·rat·ed - overestimation of skills or abilities, anything that is given too much credit and hype.

I think it's to early to say anything like that but Lewis would know more than we would in my opinion if ferrari build just a slightly better car Fernando will win I just can't justify how people can say vettel is so good every car he has had bar the toro Rosso was quick even the BMW sauber he drove was scoring regular podiums unlike schumi, hakkinen,senna, Prost all drove absolute cactus cars in there career I in particular remember Alonso this season like schumi 96 or senna 93 just stunning. But I honestly think that deep down we will never know how good vettel is as a Ferrari move looks likely for 2014 so he jumps into a good car again I think drivers who earn stripes by driving slower cars like Alonso, schumi, hakkinen,senna,Prost,mansell and even webber deserve what they get seb just takes it so unless he proves himself in a slower car and not a half decent toro Rosso for a 1 and a half Seasons duznt cut it to schumi and his Ferrari campaign or his benetton days or hakkinen in his lotus and old mclaren and so on it's like schumi coming in straight into his winning Ferrari and judging him on that not fair on the real champs sorry.

I believe it was in reference to the Abu Dhabi GP itself, not him being the luckiest driver of the season/in total. I'm not surprised by the way you read into this considering your blind hate for Hamilton. I don't think you can deal with anything related to Hamilton civilly and to be quite honest your posts are a waste of peoples time as there is never anything substantially important in them...

Stay on topic please, this thread is not about your personal appraisal of my post quality and motives, stop being a ****, your rant in my direction is just self important garbage and nothing to do with Lewis opening his mouth and having rubbish spill out yet again, he's crying into his beer because a better driver won the WDC, I'm merely stating how I perceive his little green eyed monster comments, rightly or wrongly. Not everyone buys into this oversold LH amazing driving god myth you know zzzzz..

You've said the same as the other chap, less the little tirade, I know, it reeked of sour grapes, I said as much in another reply, you've quoted the wrong post I think.

Still, thanks for posting the link, sour grapes text in full taken from the video :

"..incredible how Sebastian came up from the pitlane, that was, I don't know how, that's got to be the luckiest person in Formula 1"

Ahh, silly me, yes, luck, there was I thinking that ballsy drive from pit lane to podium was worthy of a pat on the back at least, but no, it's simply "luckiest person in Formula 1" haha, what a bellend

(I'm starting to see where his fans get this from)

_________________o·ver·rat·ed - overestimation of skills or abilities, anything that is given too much credit and hype.

You've said the same as the other chap, less the little tirade, I know, it reeked of sour grapes, I said as much in another reply, you've quoted the wrong post I think.

Still, thanks for posting the link, sour grapes text in full taken from the video :

"..incredible how Sebastian came up from the pitlane, that was, I don't know how, that's got to be the luckiest person in Formula 1"

Ahh, silly me, yes, luck, there was I thinking that ballsy drive from pit lane to podium was worthy of a pat on the back at least, but no, it's simply "luckiest person in Formula 1" haha, what a bellend

(I'm starting to see where his fans get this from)

You missed him hitting another driver and a DRS board and having a number of things go his way then? Hamilton didn't say anything about Seb being rubbish or not being up to the challenge, in fact I don't recall him ever saying Vettel was unworthy of any of his accomplishments. He merely called him lucky. Vettel IS one of the luckiest drivers in F1, I think Brazil turn 4 cemented that, his car somehow stayed in one piece! He didn't end up in Ricciardo's gearbox in Abu Dhabi, he didn't end up with more damage after hitting Senna in Abu Dhabi... its all lucky, Hamilton didn't say anything offensive or derogatory.

Come to think of it, has anyone noticed that Vettel went up the inside of Senna in Abu Dhabi, hit Senna, and both parties came away fine, well except Vet's slight wing damage... but in Brazil Senna returned the favour, and both lost out quite badly (Senna moreso). Same overoptimistic move, same drivers, different results, awww.

_________________"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."

You've said the same as the other chap, less the little tirade, I know, it reeked of sour grapes, I said as much in another reply, you've quoted the wrong post I think.

Still, thanks for posting the link, sour grapes text in full taken from the video :

"..incredible how Sebastian came up from the pitlane, that was, I don't know how, that's got to be the luckiest person in Formula 1"

Ahh, silly me, yes, luck, there was I thinking that ballsy drive from pit lane to podium was worthy of a pat on the back at least, but no, it's simply "luckiest person in Formula 1" haha, what a bellend

(I'm starting to see where his fans get this from)

It looks like you're just blinded by your hatred for Lewis if i'm honest.

_________________A man exists for only a lifetime, a name lasts until the end of time.

There's no such thing as a car's general pace. If it were driven by the whole grid, an average might represent that. But that doesn't happen. There is only how fast driver A can go in the car, and how fast driver B can go in it. On race day, I think MOST pairings, most weekends, can achieve the same ultimate lap times, or very, very close. Is Lewis always good for a few tenths more than his teammate? Nope. Is Fernando? Nope. Is Sebastian? Nope. And that's true on either day.

If there is no such thing as a car's general pace, then can Vettel get into a HRT and lap quicker than Alonso in his Ferrari? Ofc not, each team has a general pace and that builds through out the year with development.

There is only the pace of one driver in one car. If one driver can get more pace out of the car, then that's the pace of the car. Saying "I would reckon LH is indeed worth a couple of tenths above and beyond a cars general pace, perhaps more in quali" is essentially saying "I think Lewis can drive any car a couple of tenths faster than anyone currently driving it". Which is just silly.

wasn't online to reply before now - but I think you must be rather unaware of the depths of what driver ability means. Firstly, some drivers take ages to get into the groove of a car, the track, the tyres, etc. Others do it really quickly. I agree that the majority of drivers will be very close in identical cars BUT the more skilled drivers will be on the ultimate pace very very quickly.Then - when track conditions change - or the car gets lighter, etc, etc - those 'better' drivers will adapt quicker, etc......Hamilton, Ferd and Vettel have CONSISTENTLY shown faster pace than their teammates - and it was not simply down to set up!Hence, my comment regarding the general pace of the car - note I did not use the term ULTIMATE pace of the car - as that would of course, be the fastest it can go with a perfect lap, etc

They haven't really though. None of the "big 3" are squarely faster than their teammates all the time. They either both achieve similar times at some point throughout the weekend, or trade off on weekends when one has a couple of tenths up on the other.

They haven't really though. None of the "big 3" are squarely faster than their teammates all the time. They either both achieve similar times at some point throughout the weekend, or trade off on weekends when one has a couple of tenths up on the other.

The only time you see the real difference is Q3 when both get a clean lap. In the races there are too much factors wich have influnce on the speed

They haven't really though. None of the "big 3" are squarely faster than their teammates all the time. They either both achieve similar times at some point throughout the weekend, or trade off on weekends when one has a couple of tenths up on the other.

I don't believe you can say that - sure, I recall Jens having a few good sessions, as did Massa and Webber on occasion - but overall they were all soundly outpaced by their teammates I can't be bothered to revist the stats, but I'm pretty sure they will bear me out). My point is that, for example, MW and SV may well be able to have identical pace in identical cars (let's ignore personal set up preferences for the minute) but I'd would put a big wager on the fact that Vettel would reach maximum pace in far fewer laps than Webber, 9 times out of 10. So, on that basis, who is the better driver? In my opinion, it would be Vettel for getting 'there' quicker - and because that skill is a requirement of racing and all of those tiny fractions of second lost per lap whilst 'getting into the groove' is what sets them apart (especially over a race distance!).

If your standard for judging "best" driver is how fast they get...fast.....then okay. But that still doesnt mean any one driver is good for a few tenths in any car over everyone else. In fact, it has nothing to do with it.

Further, the "fastest" driver doesn't get the prize. The driver that collects the most points does. If you want to look at the gang at the top, Fernando, Sebastian, and Jenson are the drivers who have outscored their teammates during their time as such. So even if Lewis WERE able to drive any car a couple of tenths faster than anyone else, it hasn't helped him win another title, so would it even matter?

If your standard for judging "best" driver is how fast they get...fast.....then okay. But that still doesnt mean any one driver is good for a few tenths in any car over everyone else. In fact, it has nothing to do with it.

Further, the "fastest" driver doesn't get the prize. The driver that collects the most points does. If you want to look at the gang at the top, Fernando, Sebastian, and Jenson are the drivers who have outscored their teammates during their time as such. So even if Lewis WERE able to drive any car a couple of tenths faster than anyone else, it hasn't helped him win another title, so would it even matter?

I'm not going to pretend I understand that post! - I specifically explained why one driver may be 'better' than another in the same car - I never even mentioned 'best' or 'best overall'. You are wanting to ignore actual posted faster lap times (i.e q3 - when pretty much all have the same chance of beating their teammate) and return to 'points earned' as an indicator? when you have the likes of schuey having multiple mechanical failures, or race accidents, etc? You accept that getting fast - fast - is okay - but don't accept that that makes that driver a better driver than one who takes his time to get 'fast'? Sorry, but that is illogical, and your moving the discussion to points (and away from qualifying as I mentioned) suggests you really didn't understand my post or the small differences in driving skills/qualities that make the consistent measurable and visible difference between the one of the top drivers and their teammate.......Moving the discussion onto points is irrelevant - anyone interested in F1 knows that the yardstick is always your teammate, and as I said, LH,SV and FA almost always outqualified their teammate. Qualifying is the only 'level playing field' possible in F1, as the racing itself is always affected by other things (of course, occasionally qualy gets stuffed too - but nowhere near as often!).

My point is no one driver is "good for a couple of tenths" over everyone else, no matter the car, and that even if one WERE, that doesn't equate to earning points, and points win championships. So saying that Lewis should be faster in the Merc than anyone else in it doesn't really mean anything other than he'll be faster (which honestly nobody has any way of knowing at this point). That doesn't translate to race wins, points, or championships. His 2012 season is proof that raw speed doesn't get you anywhere. Neither of the guys in the Mercs this year lack speed.

They haven't really though. None of the "big 3" are squarely faster than their teammates all the time. They either both achieve similar times at some point throughout the weekend, or trade off on weekends when one has a couple of tenths up on the other.

The only time you see the real difference is Q3 when both get a clean lap. In the races there are too much factors wich have influnce on the speed

I see your desperate angle here, but no points are awarded for qualifying. Points, that is, real* points = monster purse in F1. It's calculated that Hamilton could have thrown away as much as $10,000,000 for the team with his textbook "I don't ever back down" Hulkenburg contact in Brazil for instance.

*FIA don't count tinfoil/what if points.

_________________o·ver·rat·ed - overestimation of skills or abilities, anything that is given too much credit and hype.

They haven't really though. None of the "big 3" are squarely faster than their teammates all the time. They either both achieve similar times at some point throughout the weekend, or trade off on weekends when one has a couple of tenths up on the other.

The only time you see the real difference is Q3 when both get a clean lap. In the races there are too much factors wich have influnce on the speed

I see your desperate angle here, but no points are awarded for qualifying. Points, that is, real* points = monster purse in F1. It's calculated that Hamilton could have thrown away as much as $10,000,000 for the team with his textbook "I don't ever back down" Hulkenburg contact in Brazil for instance.

*FIA don't count tinfoil/what if points.

WTF has that to do with better or fastest driver? Racing is racing -and racing incidents are a part of it!

They haven't really though. None of the "big 3" are squarely faster than their teammates all the time. They either both achieve similar times at some point throughout the weekend, or trade off on weekends when one has a couple of tenths up on the other.

The only time you see the real difference is Q3 when both get a clean lap. In the races there are too much factors wich have influnce on the speed

I see your desperate angle here, but no points are awarded for qualifying. Points, that is, real* points = monster purse in F1. It's calculated that Hamilton could have thrown away as much as $10,000,000 for the team with his textbook "I don't ever back down" Hulkenburg contact in Brazil for instance.

*FIA don't count tinfoil/what if points.

If that comment is not intended to be facetious then you are clinically insane. Hulkenberg lost control of his car and slid into Hamilton, it had nothing to do with Hamilton not backing down.

They haven't really though. None of the "big 3" are squarely faster than their teammates all the time. They either both achieve similar times at some point throughout the weekend, or trade off on weekends when one has a couple of tenths up on the other.

The only time you see the real difference is Q3 when both get a clean lap. In the races there are too much factors wich have influnce on the speed

I see your desperate angle here, but no points are awarded for qualifying. Points, that is, real* points = monster purse in F1. It's calculated that Hamilton could have thrown away as much as $10,000,000 for the team with his textbook "I don't ever back down" Hulkenburg contact in Brazil for instance.

*FIA don't count tinfoil/what if points.

WTF has that to do with better or fastest driver? Racing is racing -and racing incidents are a part of it!

I agree, I just suspected Haribo was trying to cling to the qualifying stats in order to relieve the pain of Jenson outscoring Mr Mavellous in their racing career together, a lot of Jenson detractors cling to "qualifying" stats as a losing comforter blanket.

_________________o·ver·rat·ed - overestimation of skills or abilities, anything that is given too much credit and hype.

They haven't really though. None of the "big 3" are squarely faster than their teammates all the time. They either both achieve similar times at some point throughout the weekend, or trade off on weekends when one has a couple of tenths up on the other.

The only time you see the real difference is Q3 when both get a clean lap. In the races there are too much factors wich have influnce on the speed

I see your desperate angle here, but no points are awarded for qualifying. Points, that is, real* points = monster purse in F1. It's calculated that Hamilton could have thrown away as much as $10,000,000 for the team with his textbook "I don't ever back down" Hulkenburg contact in Brazil for instance.

*FIA don't count tinfoil/what if points.

If that comment is not intended to be facetious then you are clinically insane. Hulkenberg lost control of his car and slid into Hamilton, it had nothing to do with Hamilton not backing down.

Well that's your opinion of the incident, calling my opinion "clinically insane" makes you come across as a bit of a cretin, stop being a cock and respect other peoples opinions perhaps?

_________________o·ver·rat·ed - overestimation of skills or abilities, anything that is given too much credit and hype.

They haven't really though. None of the "big 3" are squarely faster than their teammates all the time. They either both achieve similar times at some point throughout the weekend, or trade off on weekends when one has a couple of tenths up on the other.

The only time you see the real difference is Q3 when both get a clean lap. In the races there are too much factors wich have influnce on the speed

I see your desperate angle here, but no points are awarded for qualifying. Points, that is, real* points = monster purse in F1. It's calculated that Hamilton could have thrown away as much as $10,000,000 for the team with his textbook "I don't ever back down" Hulkenburg contact in Brazil for instance.

*FIA don't count tinfoil/what if points.

If that comment is not intended to be facetious then you are clinically insane. Hulkenberg lost control of his car and slid into Hamilton, it had nothing to do with Hamilton not backing down.

Well that's your opinion of the incident, calling my opinion "clinically insane" makes you come across as a bit of a cretin, stop being a cock and respect other peoples opinions perhaps?

No, there are instances where it is a grey area, instances where it is 90/10 split on fault, but in this particular crash Hulkenberg twice lost the rear of his car going into the corner and on the second instance spun around into Hamilton. For the record, I don't blame Hulkenberg for the accident either, it was the sort of thing that happens on a greasy track but what it was absolutely not was an incident of Hamilton's 'textbook "I don't ever back down"' attitude.

You are crazy to use that incident to support your already flawed notion that a single incident contributes to an entire season's result, but if you are going to use an incident at least pick one that Hamilton had some responsibility for. Picking the crash with Grosjean in Spa would make more sense, because while Hamilton also had no responsibility for the accident itself it was his failing in not securing a better grid slot that meant he got tangled up in it. Choosing an incident in which he was taken out by a car that was out of control makes you look like the cretin, not me.

And for the record, using the words "clinically insane" in the same sentence as "facetious" should give you a clue in how they were intended.

I see your desperate angle here, but no points are awarded for qualifying. Points, that is, real* points = monster purse in F1. It's calculated that Hamilton could have thrown away as much as $10,000,000 for the team with his textbook "I don't ever back down" Hulkenburg contact in Brazil for instance.

*FIA don't count tinfoil/what if points.

If that comment is not intended to be facetious then you are clinically insane. Hulkenberg lost control of his car and slid into Hamilton, it had nothing to do with Hamilton not backing down.

Well that's your opinion of the incident, calling my opinion "clinically insane" makes you come across as a bit of a cretin, stop being a cock and respect other peoples opinions perhaps?

No, there are instances where it is a grey area, instances where it is 90/10 split on fault, but in this particular crash Hulkenberg twice lost the rear of his car going into the corner and on the second instance spun around into Hamilton. For the record, I don't blame Hulkenberg for the accident either, it was the sort of thing that happens on a greasy track but what it was absolutely not was an incident of Hamilton's 'textbook "I don't ever back down"' attitude.

You are crazy to use that incident to support your already flawed notion that a single incident contributes to an entire season's result, but if you are going to use an incident at least pick one that Hamilton had some responsibility for. Picking the crash with Grosjean in Spa would make more sense, because while Hamilton also had no responsibility for the accident itself it was his failing in not securing a better grid slot that meant he got tangled up in it. Choosing an incident in which he was taken out by a car that was out of control makes you look like the cretin, not me.

And for the record, using the words "clinically insane" in the same sentence as "facetious" should give you a clue in how they were intended.

Oh, and also, lets suppose for a second that it was Hamilton's fault. Lets say instead he totally backed out of the position and let Hulkenberg through before the corner. Well Hulkenberg would have won the race, McLaren finished second and third with Ferrari fourth and fifth... Guess what? Ferrari still finish second in the WCC. Even if you were right about the crash, it makes no difference, you don't even have an argument!

My point is no one driver is "good for a couple of tenths" over everyone else, no matter the car, and that even if one WERE, that doesn't equate to earning points, and points win championships. So saying that Lewis should be faster in the Merc than anyone else in it doesn't really mean anything other than he'll be faster (which honestly nobody has any way of knowing at this point). That doesn't translate to race wins, points, or championships. His 2012 season is proof that raw speed doesn't get you anywhere. Neither of the guys in the Mercs this year lack speed.

Well, if that's your view - that's fine! I have explained why I believe drivers ARE different and how that reflects in their ability to be faster than their teammate, and how that pans out during quali and race pace. From your logic, all teammates would have shared the quali honours 10:10 last year and presumably would always finish next to their teammate (barring accidents and cock ups!) - perhaps even crossing the finish line absolutely alongside each other? Sorry, but no - it obviously doesn't work like that. The better drivers are the ones who extract the best performance out of the car, in a quicker and more efficient manner than their teammate, and are usually the ones who can drive around problems, etc, etc. It's not rocket science and absolutely best demonstrated using qualifying. Translation of that raw speed, is, as you say, not necessarily going to be seen in the final points positions for 'racing' reasons, but that is a completely different subject.For the record, I do think some drivers are worth more (in terms of outright pace) than others - and I think SV, LH and FA demonstrated that admirably this year - and I would say all have shown they are 'generally' or 'more often than not' a couple of tenths faster than their teammate. If you don't think any of them is worth a couple of tenths more than their teammate then we will just have to disagree.I should imagine their pay packets also reflect this (unless you happen to know that the 'lower' drivers are on equal pay to the top drivers?). Far be it for me to simply big up those that have the bigger pay packets, but logic dictates that teams are hardly likely to pay over the odds for 'average' drivers! As it happens I like the top 4 drivers pretty much equally but for different reasons (LH, SV, JB and FA !) but I also like to see MW and FM and others do well too, but the facts show that there IS a difference in raw pace of some of these guys! If you can't see it, or are simply wanting to 'defend' a slightly slower driver, then there is really nothing more I can say.